Le dimanche 04 septembre 2011 à 12:00 +0200, Mathieu Malaterre a écrit : > On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Anton Gladky <gladky.an...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Before I close this bug, could you please confirm this is done on > >> purpose ? My intial understanding when you volonteer to help on the > >> paraview package, was that paraview package should only contains > >> anything needed by paraview application at run time. While > >> paraview-dev would be a package for building third party module... > > > > The idea was to put header-files into the separate binary to unload a > > little bit paraview itself. That is it. > > > > I am not against reshuffling some files between paraview and > > paraview-dev. I am just against of strong hard-coding, which can lead > > to a mess. > > Not sure what you mean by hard-coding. But my plan to be very specific > was that building paraview plugin would require the paraview-dev > package (and nothing else), while using the paraview plugin would only > require the paraview package. Typically the vtkedge or gdcm package > would B-D on paraview-dev, while the paraview plugin would simply > depends on paraview. I agree with Mathieu that all dev related files should be in paraview-dev ;)
Sylvestre -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
